*

Online Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1821
    • View Profile
Further to earlier posts, here's the most recent SpaceX first stage coming back in to port;



As I said earlier, if they're not actually doing what they claim to be doing, why bother building all this stuff?
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

*

Offline J-Man

  • *
  • Posts: 610
    • View Profile
Theatrics bro...These things don't cost squat in the scope of the budget to fool you.

The filming of the ISS has been proven fraudulent sooo many times.

Thanks for playing !!!
What kind of person would devote endless hours posting scientific facts trying to correct the few retards who believe in the FE? I slay shitty little demons.

*

Online Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1821
    • View Profile
Theatrics bro...

Wild theory, bro. Unproven.
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

*

Offline J-Man

  • *
  • Posts: 610
    • View Profile
nothing passes the sniff test when it comes to NASA

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/07/24/sorry-internet-some-of-your-favorite-space-pictures-are-fakes/#7472db02437e

"Sorry, Internet, Some Of Your Favorite Space Pictures Are Fakes"

My opinion is it's all fakery !!!  ALL OF IT....You've lost your way to GOD

Next you'll believe I gained 3.5 inches in space and lost 55 lbs.   space is good !!
« Last Edit: December 07, 2019, 11:07:12 PM by J-Man »
What kind of person would devote endless hours posting scientific facts trying to correct the few retards who believe in the FE? I slay shitty little demons.

*

Online Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1821
    • View Profile
nothing passes the sniff test when it comes to NASA

... yet we've just been talking about SpaceX. Not NASA.

You take issue with NASA's photos, yet SpaceX don't do photos (very much). They just launch stuff for folk who pay them to do so. They bring honkin' big first stages back to Earth and re-use them, which nobody had done before them. They have a queue of more customers waiting to pay them. This is all plain to see, quite obvious, and most of it is done in full view of the public. You can go to Florida and watch it for yourself, the next time they bring a first stage back to Canaveral. 

Yet your opinion is that it's all fake. OK.
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10553
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
... yet we've just been talking about SpaceX. Not NASA.
NASA subcontractors may as well be NASA. It really doesn't matter that their money is now operating under a slightly nicer name.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

Offline somerled

  • *
  • Posts: 243
    • View Profile
Rockets in a vacuum





Nice videos showing that you cannot ignite a rocket engine in a low pressure environment . 5mins in guy says " it is more difficult to ignite the rocket in a vacuum " -  it is actually impossible . After another failure at 9 mins he has to alter his rocket engine , he seals the nozzle . He turns it into a bomb/bullet .

He is no longer testing whether a rocket engine will work in a vacuum - he is testing whether a bomb will explode in a vacuum which is pointless since there is no argument about that.

His 4K slow motion video of the same bomb shows ,at about 2.5 mins , the explosion blowing his pressure cap of his fuel releasing gas and pressurizing the container allowing the fuel to burn .

Both videos prove that a rocket engine will not burn in a low pressure environ .

My opinion is it's all fakery !!!  ALL OF IT....
Right. But what is that opinion based on?
I mean, I’ve seen a shuttle launch. I just happened to be in Florida when one was going up, the launch time was on the news so we went to see it. It was incredible.
Now, obviously I can’t know for sure it went into orbit but it certainly went straight up and then followed the curved path I’d expect.
I have no reason to think it secretly landed anywhere. If it did then where? Where are the astronauts really in the days they are allegedly in orbit? And how does the shuttle come in to land on cue and from where?
All you’re doing is shouting “FAKE!” at anything which doesn’t conform to your worldview but you’re providing no credible evidence for fakery. Opinions should be evidence based, where is your evidence? The only “evidence” I’ve seen are confirmation biased based “bubbles in space” type videos by people who have already decided it’s all fake and desperately analyse video without having any actual skills in the area of video or photographic analysis.

Your link. Yes, sometimes pictures are made to give ideas of what things might look like - particularly things like views of exoplanets. But when that is done it’s always made clear that is the case. Other pictures are enhanced or composited but that doesn’t mean they are fake. When I was at the Grand Canyon a few years back I took panoramic pictures. All your camera or phone does in that mode is it takes a series of pictures and digitally composites them. That doesn’t make the end result a fake or mean I was never there. After the fact I might look at one of the pictures and adjust the contrast or colour balance to make it more aesthetically appealing. Again, that doesn’t make the end result fake or mean I was never there.

What actual evidence do you have?
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Both videos prove that a rocket engine will not burn in a low pressure environ .
Ok. So you started this by claiming that rockets don’t work in a vacuum because there’s nothing for them to push against (which isn’t how rockets work).
Now having been shown conclusively that they do work you’re shifting your argument to they wouldn’t burn in space.
Admittedly ignition is more difficult in a vacuum, ignition requires oxygen. But don’t worry, the clever chaps who design rockets thought of that and they carry their own oxygen supply so ignition can happen in the vacuum of space.
This stuff is really easy to look up, you know.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Offline somerled

  • *
  • Posts: 243
    • View Profile
Both videos prove that a rocket engine will not burn in a low pressure environ .
Ok. So you started this by claiming that rockets don’t work in a vacuum because there’s nothing for them to push against (which isn’t how rockets work).
Now having been shown conclusively that they do work you’re shifting your argument to they wouldn’t burn in space.
Admittedly ignition is more difficult in a vacuum, ignition requires oxygen. But don’t worry, the clever chaps who design rockets thought of that and they carry their own oxygen supply so ignition can happen in the vacuum of space.
This stuff is really easy to look up, you know.
The "clever chaps" in the videos are using rocket fuel complate with own fkn oxidizer. I'll assume you haven't noticed that or maybe just haven't watched them.

The videos show conclusively that the rocket fuel with it's own oxidizer can not burn or ignite in a vacuum . The people carrying out these experiments , with rocket fuel complete with it's own fkn oxidizer,  have to seal the rocket nozzle thus changing the rocket engine into a bomb , changing the experiment into one of "will a bomb explode in a vacuum " which we already know will happen . Psuedoscientific trickery by clever idiots in order to brainwash the gullible .

I know it's hard to admit but ignition of a rocket engine is not difficult in a vacuum , it is impossible . Proven in principle by James Joules expansion of gas into a vacuum experiment around the 1850s - and shown in these experiments with rocket fuel ,complete with its own fkn oxidizer here . I don't have to claim rockets don't work in a vacuum because real experimental science proves so. As do the videos .

The very clever chaps you refer to are very dishonest and devious . Rocket engines are not bombs .

Rocket engines use the reactive force of thrust, Newtons 3d , provided by the launch pad or outside of nozzle atmospheric pressure , in reaction to the active force -mass flow meeting resistance ,Newtons 2nd, of the fuel burn forcing the hot gas out the fuel . You can't have Newtons 3d without the 2nd .



*

Online Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1821
    • View Profile
The videos both appear to be using amateur rocket engines, the type that can be bought over the counter in a modelling shop, or one that specialises in aircraft models and amateur rocketry.

The fact that these, which are built with a solid propellant, are difficult to start up in a vacuum, is not of itself a proof that all rockets, of all types, behave in a similar way. The ones used here appear to rely on an electrical starter (certainly those I've used in the past have done this). Once started, even they can clearly be seen running in the vacuum.

The fuel used in, for instance, the Lunar Module, was hypergolic (DiNitrogen Tetroxide and AeroZine 50). It needs no external starter, and relies simply on the combination of two fuel elements. Place them in contact with each other, and combustion results, with no ignition process or system. This is a different kind of engine to the amateur ones above.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypergolic_propellant

As a for-instance of another type, the SpaceX Falcon 9 second stage uses a Merlin engine fuelled by a combinaton of RP-1 and liquid oxygen, both of which are a bit out of the reach of the amateur.

The ignition system uses a TEA-TEB as an igniter fluid. The mixture is pyrophoric, and ignites spontaneously when it comes to contact with oxygen (including the liquid supercooled oxygen used in the primary fuel mix). Essentially, throw some of this into the path of the primary fuel mix, and this lights it up.
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

Offline somerled

  • *
  • Posts: 243
    • View Profile

The fact that these, which are built with a solid propellant, are difficult to start up in a vacuum, is not of itself a proof that all rockets, of all types, behave in a similar way. The ones used here appear to rely on an electrical starter (certainly those I've used in the past have done this). Once started, even they can clearly be seen running in the vacuum.


Once the electrical detonation ignites the bomb the vacuum is instantly destroyed - these vacuums are small containers. That initial pressure allows the fuel to burn further increasing this internal pressure and producing thrust . The important thing is that there is no longer a vacuum once these rocket engine bombs explode.

The reactive force of thrust requires that external pressure . The conversion of the engine to a bomb totally invalidates these videos as proof of anything . Would like to see these experiments carried out in a huge vacuum chamber , although can't see it happening .

*

Online Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1821
    • View Profile
The reactive force of thrust requires that external pressure.

I refer back to reply #99. There is little or no resistive pressure. The rocket exhaust is driving the air away from the engine. You can see this creating a pressure differential, causing air from above and from the side of the engine to be drawn in, and then also forced downward by the exhaust. The result being the huge mass of air, steam and smoke being driven out of the building.

What external pressure?
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

Why would one believe you could land a rocket back on land or sea safely ...

No need to "believe" when people in Florida watch them do this, for real, right in front of them. And hear and feel the double sonic booms when they do. Oodles of videos, professional and amateur, on YouTube and elsewhere.
No there isn't.

Nobody has filmed any of this, private citizen wise...
I didn't say (conversion of) thermal energy wasn't involved at all.
A rocket does not create thrust by converting thermal energy.

*

Online Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1821
    • View Profile
Nobody has filmed any of this, private citizen wise...

Disagree.









That's just the first four I found, within a few minutes. Shall I go on?

Got half a dozen more lined up in my YT watch history - all amateur, all showing the public watching this, right in front of them
« Last Edit: December 09, 2019, 02:02:55 PM by Tumeni »
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

*

Offline TomInAustin

  • *
  • Posts: 1003
  • Round Duh
    • View Profile
Why would one believe you could land a rocket back on land or sea safely ...

No need to "believe" when people in Florida watch them do this, for real, right in front of them. And hear and feel the double sonic booms when they do. Oodles of videos, professional and amateur, on YouTube and elsewhere.
No there isn't.

Nobody has filmed any of this, private citizen wise...

Now you are just lying.  Most every launch is annonced and people watch them.  Duh
Nothing Guest has ever said should be taken as representative of anything other than Guest's own delusions opinions.

Offline somerled

  • *
  • Posts: 243
    • View Profile
The reactive force of thrust requires that external pressure.

I refer back to reply #99. There is little or no resistive pressure. The rocket exhaust is driving the air away from the engine. You can see this creating a pressure differential, causing air from above and from the side of the engine to be drawn in, and then also forced downward by the exhaust. The result being the huge mass of air, steam and smoke being driven out of the building.

What external pressure?

14lbs p.s.i. atmospheric pressure at sea level .

Now you are just lying.  Most every launch is annonced and people watch them.  Duh
As I've said, I saw a shuttle launch myself. I happened to be in Florida, the launch date and time was on the news, I headed out to watch it thinking (correctly) it would be my only opportunity to do so.

It was at least 15 years ago, before smartphones and before digital cameras had the capacity to record video so I'll hold my hands up here, I've not got any video. Not sure I've even got any photos, I can have a look. But I did see it and I'll never forget how long it took for the sound to get to us when it did go up - we were a fair distance away. When it did it was like an Underground train rumbling under my feet.

Amateur video of these things is very easy to find and if totallackey wanted to stop burying his head in the sand he could make plans to go see one for himself.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

14lbs p.s.i. atmospheric pressure at sea level .
But you have been shown several videos of this working in a vacuum
Have another look at the video I posted:

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=15502.msg201754#msg201754

I believe your latest "theory" is that the gases the rocket expels which create enough pressure for the rocket to then push off of?
Have a look at the end of the video where there's a slowed down video of the rocket working in a vacuum.
You'll note the pressure gauge barely flickers after the rocket has moved so no, after the rocket has moved it's still pretty much in a vacuum.
And the tube is over 3m long in response to the idea that it could have been pushing off the bottom of the container.
You then changed tack and started about combustion - that has been dealt with above by someone who knows what they're talking about.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

*

Online Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1821
    • View Profile
14lbs p.s.i. atmospheric pressure at sea level .

... which is not providing any resistance at all to the rocket exhaust. That air is getting blown far, far away, and the result is that air to the above and side of the engine is being drawn in - rapidly - to fill the void.

The air below the engine at start up has been ejected out of the side of the building, with the air from above and side of the engine also being driven out when it gets in the way of the exhaust.





Thought experiment; a single particle of rocket exhaust leaves the engine and hits a single particle of air. How does that transfer forward motion back to the body of the craft? 
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?